NC+1, MN-1 remains only apportionment change, until 2014 when Texas gains from Michigan.

Minnesota has already lost a US House Seat in this decade? I thought Minnesota might stave off a lost US House Seat in this decade since it ranks 16th in population growth so far in 2011-2012. I know before the 2010 Census came out people thought Minnesota was gonna lose a House Seat to Colorado but it didn't happen. Now it looks likes it has happened. Maybe Colorado could have gained a seat from Missouri and Minnesota would have kept 8 House Seats would have been the scenario that I thought could have played out. Missouri's population growth has been miserable in 2011-2012.

NC+1, MN-1 remains only apportionment change, until 2014 when Texas gains from Michigan.

Minnesota has already lost a US House Seat in this decade? I thought Minnesota might stave off a lost US House Seat in this decade since it ranks 16th in population growth so far in 2011-2012. I know before the 2010 Census came out people thought Minnesota was gonna lose a House Seat to Colorado but it didn't happen. Now it looks likes it has happened. Maybe Colorado could have gained a seat from Missouri and Minnesota would have kept 8 House Seats would have been the scenario that I thought could have played out. Missouri's population growth has been miserable in 2011-2012.

I don't see MO losing a district until at least 2040. MN has already lost it's district to NC, we will see if it can gain it back.

NC+1, MN-1 remains only apportionment change, until 2014 when Texas gains from Michigan.

Minnesota has already lost a US House Seat in this decade? I thought Minnesota might stave off a lost US House Seat in this decade since it ranks 16th in population growth so far in 2011-2012. I know before the 2010 Census came out people thought Minnesota was gonna lose a House Seat to Colorado but it didn't happen. Now it looks likes it has happened. Maybe Colorado could have gained a seat from Missouri and Minnesota would have kept 8 House Seats would have been the scenario that I thought could have played out. Missouri's population growth has been miserable in 2011-2012.

If there was independent rounding, Minnesota would have had 7 representatives in 2010, since it had less than 7.5/435 of the total population. But the same was true for FL, CA, WA, and TX. These 4 states along with MN were apportioned an extra seat to make the total 435.

To keep its 8th seat, MN has to avoid being passed by two states, or alternatively pass some states ahead of it.

If you think of it as a finish of a long distance race, MN is in a pack with some fast finishers, and it just barely kept ahead of NC and TX. If the race was another 100 yards TX and NC would have caught MN. Also from 2010 to 2012, MN was 28th fastest, which is just mediocre.

Because of this cluster of fast gainers just above the threshold, and mostly slow gainers below, there have been few changes so far. TX easily went past MN into 435, and then NC gained its 14th seat and the expense of MN.

By the time the slow growing states drop down to the level of MN, faster growing states have caught up.

By 2020, MN will not yet have caught WV and NY, and OR will have surpassed it.

Based on projecting April 2010 census to July 2012 estimate forward to April 2020, Minnesota will have grown 6.5%. But the country as a whole will have increased 7.6%. Minnesota has to keep pace with the country as a whole to keep its 8th seat.

What are the current odds of California getting a 54th seat at the next Census? I know that based on its shear population, it can easily be on the cusp of losing a seat, gaining a seat, or staying steady with minimal population shifts. Obviously, I think California getting its financial situation in order can only benefit good population growth. I'm just curious to know what the trends are leading towards (beyond the vague Northeast and Midwest towards the South and West).

I'm also wondering about Oregon and it's potential sixth seat. Based on what I've seen, it seems rather surprising that CO-08 will happen before OR-06.

NC+1, MN-1 remains only apportionment change, until 2014 when Texas gains from Michigan.

Minnesota has already lost a US House Seat in this decade? I thought Minnesota might stave off a lost US House Seat in this decade since it ranks 16th in population growth so far in 2011-2012. I know before the 2010 Census came out people thought Minnesota was gonna lose a House Seat to Colorado but it didn't happen. Now it looks likes it has happened. Maybe Colorado could have gained a seat from Missouri and Minnesota would have kept 8 House Seats would have been the scenario that I thought could have played out. Missouri's population growth has been miserable in 2011-2012.

If there was independent rounding, Minnesota would have had 7 representatives in 2010, since it had less than 7.5/435 of the total population. But the same was true for FL, CA, WA, and TX. These 4 states along with MN were apportioned an extra seat to make the total 435.

To keep its 8th seat, MN has to avoid being passed by two states, or alternatively pass some states ahead of it.

If you think of it as a finish of a long distance race, MN is in a pack with some fast finishers, and it just barely kept ahead of NC and TX. If the race was another 100 yards TX and NC would have caught MN. Also from 2010 to 2012, MN was 28th fastest, which is just mediocre.

Because of this cluster of fast gainers just above the threshold, and mostly slow gainers below, there have been few changes so far. TX easily went past MN into 435, and then NC gained its 14th seat and the expense of MN.

By the time the slow growing states drop down to the level of MN, faster growing states have caught up.

By 2020, MN will not yet have caught WV and NY, and OR will have surpassed it.

Based on projecting April 2010 census to July 2012 estimate forward to April 2020, Minnesota will have grown 6.5%. But the country as a whole will have increased 7.6%. Minnesota has to keep pace with the country as a whole to keep its 8th seat.

It's interesting that so many seats will come down to the wire. How much have projections changed since the 2010 census? I'm surprised to see that AZ-10 isn't even on the short list? Is AL-07 still in danger?

What are the current odds of California getting a 54th seat at the next Census? I know that based on its shear population, it can easily be on the cusp of losing a seat, gaining a seat, or staying steady with minimal population shifts. Obviously, I think California getting its financial situation in order can only benefit good population growth. I'm just curious to know what the trends are leading towards (beyond the vague Northeast and Midwest towards the South and West).

I'm also wondering about Oregon and it's potential sixth seat. Based on what I've seen, it seems rather surprising that CO-08 will happen before OR-06.

Over the long haul, what is important is the difference between the rate of growth of a State and the country as a whole. Based on the 2012 estimates, Colorado is growing at a rate of 14.8% per decade, Oregon at 8.2%, and the USA at 7.6%.

The differential for Colorado is 7.2% vs Oregon at 0.6%. Colorado is making progress at 12 times the rate of Oregon. To gain a seat, you can estimate that a state will have to have a cumulative increase of 1/(N-0.5) to gain an Nth seat. So for Colorado 1/7.5 = 13.3%. So the 7.2% is about half of what it needs.

Colorado barely secured the 7th seat in 2000 (it was much closer to 6.5), it solidified its 7th seat in 2010, and by the end of the decade will be right around 7.5.

Oregon needs 1/(6-0.5) = 18.2%, but at only 0.6% faster, it takes many decades to gain a seat. A fractional apportionment would have them go from 5.408 to 5.431 from 2010 to 2020. Its close to 5.5 - but making much progress.

California needs 1/(54-0.5) = 1.9%, which is about what it is doing. It got a very lucky rounding in 2000, and a somewhat lucky rounding in 2010. It is right about increasing a whole seat, but if it doesn't get a lucky rounding, it won't actually gain.

It's interesting that so many seats will come down to the wire. How much have projections changed since the 2010 census? I'm surprised to see that AZ-10 isn't even on the short list? Is AL-07 still in danger?

For AL to lose its 7th representative, it would have to gain 18 thousand fewer persons (0.4%) less than its projected gain of 4.0%. For AZ to gain its 10th representative it would need 110 thousand more persons (1.5%) - increase its growth rate from 11.7% to 13.2%.

Since CA has about 1/8 of the USA population, it should appear about every 8th position on the list, so with 13 positions from CA 53 to CA 55, it is actually a bit sparse around the final seats.

The losses for IL (18), MI (14), OH (16), PA (18), and RI (2) are more certain (a margin of at least 2%), as are the first two gains for TX (37,38) and NC (14).

In a sense, AL is keeping its 7th seat because no one is stepping forward to take it; and NY, WV, and MN might keep their districts, or OR and AZ claim one with not a big jump.

Whenever the census bureau releases estimates, it updates older estimates. So when it releases the 2013 estimate it will also make changes to the 2012 and older estimates.

Can most of the pre-2020 changes be considered sure things? If growth fell off so that the decade ended with projected 2019 populations instead of projected 2020 populations, we would still have the new FL, VA and CO seats and the first 2 new TX seats? In your mind are any of these in doubt?

Can most of the pre-2020 changes be considered sure things? If growth fell off so that the decade ended with projected 2019 populations instead of projected 2020 populations, we would still have the new FL, VA and CO seats and the first 2 new TX seats? In your mind are any of these in doubt?

The ones within 2% which I showed above are probably all in range of switching from being in the top 435 to being below. Interstate migration and overall growth have dropped so much that even a 2% change is huge. Alabama is projected to gain 4.0% population. It it would gain only 3.6% it could lose the 7th representative. That's a plausible slowdown. But it is unlikely to to drop 2% to 2.0% or increase 2.0% to 6.0%.

Pennsylvania is projected to increase 276,000 in the decade. But it would need to gain another 373,000 to save its 18th seat. That isn't going to happen.

If fertility rates increase, that is pretty much an across the board in all states, with some older states not getting quite the benefit since they have a smaller share of woman of child-bearing age. In Pennsylvania and West Virginia, an increase in the fertility rate, won't have as much effect on the birth rate or growth rate.

California and New York are extremely close (1 part in 20000) - so that is a coin flip even if the projections were perfect.